Obama '08?

Thanks, fellas. I've found this discussion clarifying. Snood, clearly, is the problem.

Snood thinks about race. He thinks about the history of blacks in America. He thinks about the culture of african-americans. He thinks about his skin color. He thinks about the history of whites in America. He thinks about the culture of european-americans. He thinks about their skin color.

And there's the problem of race in america right there. Snood and other blacks (and there's a few whites in here too) think about race.

They ought to stop thinking about this stuff because it is their thinking that now creates racism in america. The premise of their thinking is..."differences"! With that premise, it's no surprise that they will inevitably toss that race card out onto every table, scattering crumpet crumbs and jiggling teacups.

If they would just stop thinking "different!" and begin thinking "ditto!" or "copy" or "clone" or "facsimile" then race would no longer pose problems for everyone. Race would disappear as a factor in social and mental architecture.

Clearly, blacks like snood have commonly failed in this natural progression towards non-blackness because they haven't properly appreciated the vital non-blackness of the conservative world-view and value-set.

dys said

Quote:

I've found that by using an 18% gray card and adjusting shutter speed and/or the aperture size I can alter all people and the entire universe to a single neutral non-descript, valueless white rendering the concept "colour blind" with an entirely new meaning.

You're on to something, dys. If we can get the Polaroid people to make an attachment for black peoples' eyes and brains, then that would really help the efforts to get them color-blind.

Viva la difference!

I suggested that it become illegal to breed within one's own race for a generation and then we would have one beautiful homogonous race of people and all the women might end up looking like Maria Carey.

BTW BPB -- how illegal?

Texas v. Ohio
March 3, 2008; Page A16

As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton race around Ohio and Texas for tomorrow's primaries, they are telling a tale of economic woe. Yet the real story isn't how similar the two states are economically but how different. Texas has been prospering while Ohio lags, and the reasons are instructive about what works and what doesn't in economic policy.

There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.

Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

Ohio, Indiana and Michigan are losing auto jobs, but many of these "runaway plants" are not fleeing to China, Mexico or India. They've moved to more business-friendly U.S. states, including Texas. GM recently announced plans for a new plant to build hybrid cars. Guess where? Near Dallas. In 2006 the Lone Star State exported $5.5 billion of cars and trucks to Mexico and $2.4 billion worth to Canada.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, blames his state's problems on President Bush. But Ohio's economy has been struggling for years, and most of its wounds are self-inflicted. Ohio now ranks 47th out of 50 in economic competitiveness, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.

Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians -- and thus its employers -- are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right to work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations.

On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.

So tomorrow the eyes of America will be on these two states moving in different directions. Ohio has an economy burdened by high taxes and work rules that impose heavy costs on employers. Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn't impose unions on business and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a new plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn't even a close call.

The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450306595906431.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

I responded back here, Finn...

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3126746#3126746

I'm glad that you were all able to be with her at the end, Lola.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Under what scenario does Obama secure the number of delegates to outright lock in the nomination?

There are lots of scenarios in which he does increasingly better as the primaries wear on and as people increasingly want to bring the process to a close. If he becomes the prohibitive front-runner, superdelegates (undeclared and formerly in the Hillary column) could make it known that they will be supporting him, putting him over the top.

This scenario will require Hillary to lose virtually all of the next five or six primaries and an overwhelming revolt of her pledged delegates. Anything is possible, but this is not likely to happen.

Quote:

You and other Obama supporters are assuming that if he is in the lead when the convention comes around,it's all over. Why? Why have a magic number if it doesn't mean anything?

The number just means that's it, the automatic number has been reached and nothing more needs to be done. If it's less than that number, then other elements come in -- like superdelegates.

My point exactly. If he doesn't lock her out with his delegate count he is going to have to resort to good old fashioned bare knuckle politics, like contributing close to 5 times more money than her to superdelegate election campaigns. In back room political infighting she has as good a chance as him (albeit less money). Again, no reason to concede.

That's where announcements like Richardson's become important.

Quote:

Your Party has created these rules, and you want to ignore them because your guy is in the lead. Understandable --- I'd be there with you if I was an Obama supporter, but I'd like to think I wouldn't get the self-righteous ass if Hillary didn't see it my way and refused to concede.

Not to say that you personally have a problem with her not conceding but there is a sense of same out there

I don't have a problem with her not conceding now. I may or may not have a problem as of Wednesday morning.

If at that point she has a "chance" but a vanishingly small one, I do think she should concede. There is just too much of an advantage ceded to the Republicans if the Democratic front-runner has to compete on two fronts -- against his Democratic opponent and also his Republican opponent.

I have a feeling that the definition of a "vanishingly small chance at winning" is different in the Obama camp as opposed to the Clinton camp.

This scenario will require Hillary to lose virtually all of the next five or six primaries and an overwhelming revolt of her pledged delegates. Anything is possible, but this is not likely to happen.

Hopefully, Obama will win the popular vote in Texas and we can say goodbye to Hillary, she will try to hang in but the powers that be will force her out if she loses Texas or Ohio. Her kitchen sink strategy has slowed Obama's momentum. I guess that's why you never count a Clinton out. They are as bad as the Republicans with their win-at-any-cost philosophy.